Skip to main content
· 4/15/1907

Cunningham v. Wanamaker

Citations

  • 217 Pa. 497
  • 66 A. 748
  • 1907 Pa. LEXIS 745

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Sale—Rescission—W aiver.</p> <p>In an action of assumpsit to recover the price paid for two electric vehicles, it appeared that after the vehicles had been delivered to the plaintiff, and paid for, he found they were unsatisfactory, and so reported to the defendant. The latter requested him to ship them back, that they might be made satisfactory. They were sent back, and subsequently a test was made, which the plaintiff declared was unsatisfactory, and he demanded a return of his money which was refused. The vehicles remained in the hands of the defendant, and thereupon plaintiff addressed a letter to the defendant in which he stated that he had left with him the vehicles in question to sell for the plaintiff’s account and risk at a sum stated, and further assumed all risks in case of loss and damage to the vehicles by fire. Some months afterwards he again wrote to the defendant several letters telling him to sell the vehicles for the best price that could be got for them, and as quickly as possible. Subsequently the defendant notified plaintiff that he had an offer for the vehicles which was about one-third the price which plaintiff had paid for them. No response was made to this communication, and the vehicles continued to remain in defendant’s possession until three years after the original sale, when suit was brought to recover the purchase money. Held, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.</p>

Judges: Brown, Elkin, Mkstruzat, Mttchell, Potter, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.